Hey Dr. Hart. I apologize if this isn’t an appropriate topic for this forum (please promptly delete my comment if this is the case), but as I assume you’re aware, Frs Stephen De Young and Andrew Stephen Damick of the Lord of Spirits podcast recently released a 3 hour long denunciation of universalism, where you feature prominently. While it appears to be light on actual argument, hearing them call for your repentance left me itching for a reply. Any plans for a rebuttal?
Hmm. As the saying goes, that would look good on their CVs, not so good on mine.
That’s a pair of deeply, deeply stupid men. It would be like arguing with two houseplants. Why are you wasting your time with such podcasts? You’ve got better things to do.
I guess The Lord of Spirits is a useful podcast, if you happen to practice a purely literalist exegesis and believe that every event described in Scripture not only happened in some form but was willed (rather than simply permitted) by God. If, for instance, you want a in-universe explanation why the massacre of the Canaanites was divinely sanctioned (hint: according to them it was a crusade to rid those lands of demon worshiping and those, who denounced their evil masters, were spared and assimilated) or why the bears’ attack on the children ridiculing Elisha was justified (hint: they argue that the offenders were not children but young men and they were not simply taunting him but trying to force him to make an ungodly sacrifice, the refusal of which would have resulted in his murder), you will find them very helpful. If, on the other hand, you believe in God of absolute love and infinite mercy, who would never will an act that would offend our divinely inspired conscience, then you will find their interpretation rather lacking.
But I don’t want to disparage the two priests. They are simply teaching what they have been taught and they believe they are following the catechism. I assume that their bishop is also supporting them. It’s a pity that the institutional Church is offering so little hope to so few these days. And perhaps this is one of the main reasons for the declining numbers of church attendance. Bulgakov saw it very clearly: “The prevalence of the pedagogy of fear in eschatology, which perhaps was characteristic of and effective in the psychology of past ages, is ineffective and tends to be shocking in our own time. This is a simple and evident psychological fact. By no means does this signify that we have lost the fear of God and stopped being conscious of the implacable responsibility that we bear for our lives. Rather, it signifies that the modern consciousness does not accept the idea of infinite punishment and torment for finite and limited sins.”
As regards their being “stupid”, almost all of us will look that way next to DBH, so I wouldn’t hold that against them:).
Only in America will you find a large number of Orthodox priests who mistake patristic allegory for Marcionism. Since when does Orthodoxy—of all traditions—teach that the “scandal” of the text is never scandalous?
Even those explanations at least show some inclination towards the good - they try to upgrade the sins of the “other” such that we won’t feel so bad about them and their women, children, and animals being utterly destroyed. God forbid we question the historicity of the account, that would be too far! But at the very least these sorts of apologetic moves demonstrate that the conscience of the literalist is protesting against or at least mildly inconvenienced by the injustices described in the texts. Cognitive dissonance, etc.
It’s a similar move we see in the “cooling” of hellfire hell represents an existential prison an individual chooses rather than an infernal torture chamber one is assigned to by the just god of the universe.
I propose that thinking about what ‘inspiration’ means can also be helpful here. If Scripture is Scripture, it is written by “men carried along by a holy spirit”—which doesn’t imply, at least to me, some extrinsic revelation welded into the mind or dictation from a Bat Kol, but instead illumination via God as the ground of our being and mind. It’s something, I would submit, like how the Rambam described it, with prophecy being like lightning flashes on a dark and stormy night.
The problem is, of course, that revelation is still being mediated through fallible, blind, and broken humans, possibly with the aid of other spirits, possibly not. The result is that the Word of God is delivered, but imperfectly, in ink and parchment, warped and fragmented by the prism of a mind. (This is just to note what St. Paul notes in Galatians—the Law, ordained by angels in a human intermediary, is garbled while nevertheless genuinely holy). Probably the best case study here is Prophet Ezekiel—the man’s mind was evidently not the healthiest, and the image of God that bubbles out of his mind reflects this—it is strange, imperious, insatiable, implacable. God still shines through it, of course, but there’s also the element of the fallen psyche disrupting the divine communiqué.
So, what should we expect for Scripture from the Bronze Age? Exactly what we find: a text that reveals God, yes, but also one that distorts the picture in many strange ways on the level of the letter…
Why should one expect complete soundness on the literal level? After all, the revelation will always be imperfect. Now, if not just a spirit, but the Holy Spirit—if this one were to overshadow somebody truly pure—well, then perhaps we would receive the Word in its fullness. But perhaps it would not come in a way we would expect it to… I doubt we would be able to significantly understand it, in any case—perhaps only in faint adumbrations.
Would you also discuss the free energy principle from Karl Friston.
Nope.
Looking forward to your engagement with Evan Thompson! That will be illuminating I'm sure :)
Hey Dr. Hart. I apologize if this isn’t an appropriate topic for this forum (please promptly delete my comment if this is the case), but as I assume you’re aware, Frs Stephen De Young and Andrew Stephen Damick of the Lord of Spirits podcast recently released a 3 hour long denunciation of universalism, where you feature prominently. While it appears to be light on actual argument, hearing them call for your repentance left me itching for a reply. Any plans for a rebuttal?
Hmm. As the saying goes, that would look good on their CVs, not so good on mine.
That’s a pair of deeply, deeply stupid men. It would be like arguing with two houseplants. Why are you wasting your time with such podcasts? You’ve got better things to do.
I guess The Lord of Spirits is a useful podcast, if you happen to practice a purely literalist exegesis and believe that every event described in Scripture not only happened in some form but was willed (rather than simply permitted) by God. If, for instance, you want a in-universe explanation why the massacre of the Canaanites was divinely sanctioned (hint: according to them it was a crusade to rid those lands of demon worshiping and those, who denounced their evil masters, were spared and assimilated) or why the bears’ attack on the children ridiculing Elisha was justified (hint: they argue that the offenders were not children but young men and they were not simply taunting him but trying to force him to make an ungodly sacrifice, the refusal of which would have resulted in his murder), you will find them very helpful. If, on the other hand, you believe in God of absolute love and infinite mercy, who would never will an act that would offend our divinely inspired conscience, then you will find their interpretation rather lacking.
But I don’t want to disparage the two priests. They are simply teaching what they have been taught and they believe they are following the catechism. I assume that their bishop is also supporting them. It’s a pity that the institutional Church is offering so little hope to so few these days. And perhaps this is one of the main reasons for the declining numbers of church attendance. Bulgakov saw it very clearly: “The prevalence of the pedagogy of fear in eschatology, which perhaps was characteristic of and effective in the psychology of past ages, is ineffective and tends to be shocking in our own time. This is a simple and evident psychological fact. By no means does this signify that we have lost the fear of God and stopped being conscious of the implacable responsibility that we bear for our lives. Rather, it signifies that the modern consciousness does not accept the idea of infinite punishment and torment for finite and limited sins.”
As regards their being “stupid”, almost all of us will look that way next to DBH, so I wouldn’t hold that against them:).
Only in America will you find a large number of Orthodox priests who mistake patristic allegory for Marcionism. Since when does Orthodoxy—of all traditions—teach that the “scandal” of the text is never scandalous?
Even those explanations at least show some inclination towards the good - they try to upgrade the sins of the “other” such that we won’t feel so bad about them and their women, children, and animals being utterly destroyed. God forbid we question the historicity of the account, that would be too far! But at the very least these sorts of apologetic moves demonstrate that the conscience of the literalist is protesting against or at least mildly inconvenienced by the injustices described in the texts. Cognitive dissonance, etc.
It’s a similar move we see in the “cooling” of hellfire hell represents an existential prison an individual chooses rather than an infernal torture chamber one is assigned to by the just god of the universe.
I propose that thinking about what ‘inspiration’ means can also be helpful here. If Scripture is Scripture, it is written by “men carried along by a holy spirit”—which doesn’t imply, at least to me, some extrinsic revelation welded into the mind or dictation from a Bat Kol, but instead illumination via God as the ground of our being and mind. It’s something, I would submit, like how the Rambam described it, with prophecy being like lightning flashes on a dark and stormy night.
The problem is, of course, that revelation is still being mediated through fallible, blind, and broken humans, possibly with the aid of other spirits, possibly not. The result is that the Word of God is delivered, but imperfectly, in ink and parchment, warped and fragmented by the prism of a mind. (This is just to note what St. Paul notes in Galatians—the Law, ordained by angels in a human intermediary, is garbled while nevertheless genuinely holy). Probably the best case study here is Prophet Ezekiel—the man’s mind was evidently not the healthiest, and the image of God that bubbles out of his mind reflects this—it is strange, imperious, insatiable, implacable. God still shines through it, of course, but there’s also the element of the fallen psyche disrupting the divine communiqué.
So, what should we expect for Scripture from the Bronze Age? Exactly what we find: a text that reveals God, yes, but also one that distorts the picture in many strange ways on the level of the letter…
Why should one expect complete soundness on the literal level? After all, the revelation will always be imperfect. Now, if not just a spirit, but the Holy Spirit—if this one were to overshadow somebody truly pure—well, then perhaps we would receive the Word in its fullness. But perhaps it would not come in a way we would expect it to… I doubt we would be able to significantly understand it, in any case—perhaps only in faint adumbrations.
Absolutely.
I'm glad to hear your trip went well and I hope your trip to the UK is just as enjoyable.
Thanks